It's great seeing KCI in Daily Decks. A few years ago I few that deck into a top8 at a JSS tournament and won this crazy promo Royal Assassin for it, along with a box of Champains right when it came out. I pulled a foil Cranial Extraction, and couldn't have been happier. Good times

I want those Ravnica magnets so bad. All 10 of them, if the Dissension ones were ever done. Anyone know where they might be to be had?

I also wouldn't mind some word-poetry kits for Magic terms, though that'd be more of a vanity. And I'd prefer it didn't include slang terms like "smack" or "mize"; making one out of the most necessary game terms would be more than sufficient.

As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing.
--Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi

Seriously, Matt's gunslinging deck is just wrong... Was it possible to lose a game? I'm not against showcasing a new sets features, but that is taking the mickey a bit. Can the power level not be made apparent by simply seeing the acceleration in a 'normal' power level deck.

You know what's really annoying? Seeing something neat like the magnetic poetry magnets previewed in the picture, only to see in the article that they're something old that most people will have no chance of finding. This is stuff I'd like to see in the "this week in Magic" column, instead of endless recitations of pro events.

Proud member of C.A.R.D. - Campaign Against Rare Duals
"...but the time has come when lands just need to be better. Creatures have gotten stronger, spells have always been insane, and lands just sat in this awkward place of necessity." Jacob Van Lunen on the refuge duals, 16 Sep 2009.
"While it made thematic sense to separate enemy and allied color fixing in the past, we have come around to the definite conclusion that it is just plain incorrect from a game-play perspective. This is one of these situations where game play should just trump flavor." - Sam Stoddard on ending the separation of allied/enemy dual lands. 05 July 2013

So, Matt's gunslinging deck had 4 x Lotu$ Cobra, 4 x Bane$layer Angel and 8 fetchlands? 27 rares and 15 mythic rares? I bet it was "fun" to play against this in L.A.!

That was my reaction as well. When they find that the decks they want to build are wall-to-wall Mythics and Rares, maybe they should try to reconsider the rarity of some of the cards they print?

That said, part of the point of this deck was playing expensive, showy legends. Iona and Ob Nixilis are reasonable Mythics. The fetchlands are annoying, but at this point we're more or less reconciled to such things being Rare (ugh). Lotus Cobra, though? What were they thinking?

Incidentally, I don't think I've posted this elsewhere, so I'll mention this here. I'm a Limited and casual constructed player. Like everyone else, the sets I like opening packs from most are those that offer the maximum number of cards that I need for decks. In the case of many Constructed players, they need only four copies at most of any given card, so the way for them to still "need" any cards at all from a set are to make those cards very scarce - Mythic Rares.

However, I tend to try to try to have a bunch of decks built at a time (much more fun in casual). Therefore, I want more than four copies of the good utility cards in a set. On the other hand, because I don't play the same deck over and over, I'm not prepared to spend a bunch of money for the contents of a single deck (the most expensive single I ever purchased was $7). What this means is that I'm a lot more interested in spending money on a set where the good utility cards are Uncommons (or possibly Rares) than a set where those cards are Mythic.

Mindbreak Trap really bugs me; I wish I had some, I'd put them into multiple decks - but I'm not going to buy packs hoping to open one, nor am I going to pay the ridiculous singles price. It should be a Uncommon, or maybe a - Rare.

Anyway, I just wanted to address what may be Wizards' view that their customer base is willing to pay a lot to acquire exactly four copies of the best cards, but will buy nothing after that. I don't place much special emphasis on exactly four copies, but if purchasing a reasonable quantity of a set aids me in building many decks, I will desire a greater quantity of that set.

The deck was played at a PreRelease, presumably to help drum up interest in the new set. The only way it makes sense to showcase a deck for that purpose with 17 Mythic Rares, 23 "chase" Rares, and at least 4 "chase" uncommon cards is if you assume some combination of tournament players (who demonstrably will spend what it takes), and players who are already committed (financially and otherwise) to the game ...

... but in that case, what's the point? There's almost nothing you can do that will make those players leave, and almost nothing you can do to get them to spend more money on your product than they already do - their financial limitations aren't driven by interest/coolness or lack thereof.

I believe - although Wizards clearly does not, and I assume they have data to back it up - that this has a negative effect on the more casual players. For example, if I'm playing kitchen table Magic and see that deck, and think it's cool enough to bring to my game, I'm going to be pretty disappointed when I discover how much money I'd have to spend to get even one of those cards, much less any sizeable chunk of the deck. So I'll stick it out and I'll agree to buy a box or two with friends, and we open all the packs ... and discover that we got one Iona and four fetchlands in our entire purchase.

At this point, I do the math and realize this is a fool's game, and Settlers of Catan/Titan/Dominion is so much cheaper. Even if I don't quit the game, I'm going to be much less likely to go to Prereleases and purchase boxes; my kitchen game will continue to be fun with my existing card set.

As a more experienced player, I look at that deck and my first thought is "Gee, who'd have thought that the most powerful cards from the last few sets put together would be good, much less using a coherent strategy in the hands of an elite player? Somebody call Mark Rosewater!".

But hey, I know now that if I go to a Prerelease, I should stay the hell away from the gunslinging tables ... and I'm a little less likely to go to a Prerelease (to be fair, I probably wasn't going to in the near future anyway). So, mission accomplished?

You know what's really annoying? Seeing something neat like the magnetic poetry magnets previewed in the picture, only to see in the article that they're something old that most people will have no chance of finding. This is stuff I'd like to see in the "this week in Magic" column, instead of endless recitations of pro events.

As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing.
--Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi

i am hoping we see blue/red chandra at some point. the goggles, the card draw ability in the middle, the reusing of instants and sorceries, all of this feels kinda izzet to me. i know ablaze's abilities are all solidly in red's color pie, but the card and character feel a bit izzet to me. of course, there's an entire novel i haven't read because i haven't seen it on sale anywhere so probably a ton of people know a lot more about chandra than i do.

Well she's not the kind of woman who cares if she looks cute or not. ^_^

you know i've never really thought about it but she is unusual in that she is female and on a magic card and yet her clothing isn't very revealing and appears to be sensible and functional. so i think you're probably right.

I never noticed until today that Iona is a LOT bigger than our average angels. Not only I didn't take note of the shape of the floating ruins (because they aren't just debris, they're broken arcs and pillars), I didn't see an explorer hanging on the slab of rock there being dwarfed in size by the angry angel....

So Aaron Forsythe's deck seems to be just another example of "Strategy + Lotus Cobra = Better Strategy."

Yeah if you thought yesterday's deck was a slap in the face...

The Director of Magic, the guy who has total control over rarities, plays a deck with 4 Lotus Cobra when gunslinging. That alone I could overlook, but then in his own words:

This deck left players with two impressions: one, Lotus Cobra was as sick as they imagined; and two, Allies were way sicker than they imagined.

So the point was to take the most-hyped card of the set and demonstrate how powerful a utility it really is. And that's no accident. At this point he already knew how many objections the card would have. This is just insulting.

I just decided that I won't be opening any packs of Zendikar (no draft/sealed), nor will I encourage them to be opened (by purchasing rares/mythics for constructed.) I'll buy some commons and maybe uncommons, and that's it. It actually isn't that bad of a loss since I've already decided the linear-but-explosive sorcery-speed effects aren't that interesting anyway. But I was going to give things a shot, as I do enjoy drafting.

I'm just one person who will go unnoticed, and I expect that. But I can't very well complain about their practices and then buy 3 boxes.

On a positive note, I did think that showing Gunslinging decks this week was a nice idea. I enjoy seeing which aspects the various developers want to show off.

I do like looking at the gunslinger decks. It's going to be interesting to see what pops up in standard that the developers didn't anticipate.

I play only limited so I'm actually happy that there are a few high value rares in the format. I sort of think of Lotus Cobra as a grizzly bear that can be traded for a free draft. Remember when sometimes you would open your Coke and under the cap it would say "have a free Coke"? That was exciting!

I also want to point out that the deck with Baneslayer Angel, Lotus Cobra, a million fetch lands, and a few Doom Blades is a rock deck in the truest sense of the word. And rock decks are characterized by having an OK matchup against everything. The way to win tournaments is not to play rock (usually) but rather it's to be clever and make good metagame choices which in all likelihood will mean playing something that does not require 8 mythic rares.

it seems silly to be running so many off color fetchlands just for the singleton linx. is it really worth it? i guess the life loss doesn't matter enough to make them worse than mountains in this deck.

it seems silly to be running so many off color fetchlands just for the singleton linx. is it really worth it? i guess the life loss doesn't matter enough to make them worse than mountains in this deck.

Pulling lands out of your deck also increases the probability that you'll draw spells, which is important in an aggro deck that wants to end the game quickly.

LOL, a slow set doesn't make a slow environment and people need to remember that.... Magic 2010 is supposedly slow in draft, and some have said the same about Zendikar... and Shards block for that matter! However, I have learned that if you look at blocks to figure out standard... you are an idiot. You look at the big picture... are there enough bits and pieces floating around to make whatever kind of deck you want work? Kudos to you for knowing that.

Example... a death-touch deck a few months ago would have been far too slow... now... Deadly Recluse, Vampire Nighthawk, Pestilence Kathari (which occasionally can kill a Baneslayer), Giant Scorpion, and Quest For the Gravelord are all legal... when you play with deathtouch, and low mana curves... 5/5s run like water! In any of those limited formats where those cards are from, Deathtouch wouldn't have been a full deck option... however, a little from column a, a little from column b.... and voila! You have a decent curve (with appropriate and effective creature kill) you have a dangerous deck.DEAD LIKE ME: LIFE AFTER DECK (budget version)

I like Chandra's new art better. "In your face attitude" is a cliche, but she pulls it off magnificently. And the card is less obvious and more interesting; all told, this was a splendid change, even if it is a bit sad to still only have one person who is a mono-red planeswalker. (I'm very sad that the Multiverse page on the Wizards site hasn't been updated with the new Chandra; both Ajanis are there, as are the two new pws of ZEN, but Chandra still has her original pic and her very short blurb. Having not read her novel, I'd love to see a new page added for her with at least a quick synopsis of what she's doing on Zendikar, why the flavor text of Inferno Elemental has her mentioning a monastery, whether she has ever met Sarkhan before, etc.

As far as the benefit of the rest of Magic is concerned, gold cards in Legends were executed perfectly. They got all the excitement a designer could hope out of a splashy new mechanic without using up any of the valuable design space. Truly amazing.
--Aaron Forsythe's Random Card Comment on Kei Takahashi

Don't flatter yourself. The TCGPlayer list is better and more refined than yours. I made the TCG player list over a month ago as well, but my version is streamlined. I never saw your list since I don't use this forum ever, I did all the work on it on Team Rev.

Regardless, to an admin, the deck is labeled as John Treviranus Crypt Control when in his article he says that I, Collin La Fleur, am the creator of the deck. If you wouldn't mind changing that, it'd be greatly appreciated.

Being that I'm the actual creator of that TCG article, I feel like calling me a plagiarist is maybe a little unfair? I got my sources on the deck from the above poster, and cited him in my article as such. Thanks!

I think the idea of duel decks is a good one. However, I don't like that each new duel deck has its own expansion symbol. When new expansion symbols are used it is harder to keep track of where cards come from.

I think Wizards should use one expansion symbol for all of the cards that come in duel decks so that beginners can identify cards that come from duel decks as (mostly) not being legal in Standard. It could be something as simple as a (D D) symbol, or it could show two jets of mana "clashing" to imply dueling.